(02-03-2013 04:29 PM)FSM_scot Wrote: That's not proof. A quick google search shows her research never stood up to peer review and it is discredited. Got any real evidence?

I know of no scholar whose work has no detractors.
Her theories make logical sense according to what she found and her detractors have nothing better to offer. It is one thing to not believe a theory. Quite another to come up with a theory against that makes logical sense.
There is no real evidence for anything that far back.
Christ, some do not believe in the German attempted genocide of the Jews and the ovens are right there to see and we have eye witnesses to it.
Regards
DL

The previous president and prime minister of Finland were women. Both at the same time, too, and roughly half of the parliament is women As for Scandinavia, things are well up here, much better than in most other parts of the world.....in fact, Swedish feminists are famous for their activity!

About women taking things in their hand, I think they're a great example of when you have energy but you run out of things to improve; the Swedish feminists are demanding for changing the male traffic signal to that of a woman (to be equal..though I don't know how equal is that towards men then?) - and they also recently demanded a right to go topless in public swimming halls because men can too!

(14-03-2013 02:08 PM)Kurangu Wrote: The previous president and prime minister of Finland were women. Both at the same time, too, and roughly half of the parliament is women As for Scandinavia, things are well up here, much better than in most other parts of the world.....in fact, Swedish feminists are famous for their activity!

About women taking things in their hand, I think they're a great example of when you have energy but you run out of things to improve; the Swedish feminists are demanding for changing the male traffic signal to that of a woman (to be equal..though I don't know how equal is that towards men then?) - and they also recently demanded a right to go topless in public swimming halls because men can too!

I believe for sure but a change in law is not quite a change in attitude.
Women in my Ontario Canada city also gained the right to go topless and I think I heard a couple of stories of women doing so but look as I may, I have yet to see a stray boob and knowing about female anatomy for many years now, especially since we are all getting fat, I really don't care to be insulted or hurt my eyes.
If it was not for silicone, the porn industry would likely fold.
People are stupid enough to think that what they see is mostly real. We can be so dumb sometimes.
The wording on here has gone from none to everyone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5eo31F93wo
Regards
DL

I would not personally want to see anyone topless even if they were not fat
It's just like, why bother? What's wrong with clothes?
Why concentrate on rubbish when there's real problems somewhere? Oh well.

(.....That hatless guy in the video looks a lot like one of my classmates. A Turkish guy. Huh.)

“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings intentionally.”
- Oscar Wilde

(14-03-2013 03:03 PM)Kurangu Wrote: I would not personally want to see anyone topless even if they were not fat
It's just like, why bother? What's wrong with clothes?
Why concentrate on rubbish when there's real problems somewhere? Oh well.

(.....That hatless guy in the video looks a lot like one of my classmates. A Turkish guy. Huh.)

To solve some of the real problems people would have to care. I do not think enough of us do.
Regards
DL

There was likely some of all you mention but we cannot know the
lifestyles of those 20 thousand years ago. The fact that they had no
major fortifications indicates that they were mostly living in peace.

There was likely some of all you mention but we cannot know the
lifestyles of those 20 thousand years ago. The fact that they had no
major fortifications indicates that they were mostly living in peace.

That is what the scholars think but we can never know for sure.

Regards

DL

We can know the lifestyles of those who lived at any time for which we can find leftovers. When we look at the leftovers of people that far back, we find tons of early infant deaths, (many of which were infanticides), short life expectancies due to disease, signs of extreme superstitious beliefs, etc. If we then compare what we now about humans today and what we know about humans 1000 years ago we can see pretty clearly that humanity is becoming less violent, not more. Once we consider that fact along with the evidences of infanticide, ritual sacrifice and other superstitions, it isn't a stretch to speculate that the life of a human being 20,000 years ago was incredibly violent and dangerous. The psychological profile of these people is, at best, paranoid schizophrenic and most likely, psychotic.

In simple terms, they didn't build fortifications because they were too mentally unstable to do so. Which is the same reason why the sciences took so long to progress. Once humanity writ large reached the point that everyone wasn't waling around in a paranoid state, religion started to fall by the wayside and technological innovation was able to flourish.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb

There was likely some of all you mention but we cannot know the
lifestyles of those 20 thousand years ago. The fact that they had no
major fortifications indicates that they were mostly living in peace.

Retard comment of the week.

Only to those who have not looked into it and think themselves better informed than scholars.
Or those who are just plain old retarded. Time will tell which you are.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1bEmq_pf0
Regards
DL

There was likely some of all you mention but we cannot know the
lifestyles of those 20 thousand years ago. The fact that they had no
major fortifications indicates that they were mostly living in peace.

That is what the scholars think but we can never know for sure.

Regards

DL

We can know the lifestyles of those who lived at any time for which we can find leftovers. When we look at the leftovers of people that far back, we find tons of early infant deaths, (many of which were infanticides), short life expectancies due to disease, signs of extreme superstitious beliefs, etc. If we then compare what we now about humans today and what we know about humans 1000 years ago we can see pretty clearly that humanity is becoming less violent, not more. Once we consider that fact along with the evidences of infanticide, ritual sacrifice and other superstitions, it isn't a stretch to speculate that the life of a human being 20,000 years ago was incredibly violent and dangerous. The psychological profile of these people is, at best, paranoid schizophrenic and most likely, psychotic.

In simple terms, they didn't build fortifications because they were too mentally unstable to do so. Which is the same reason why the sciences took so long to progress. Once humanity writ large reached the point that everyone wasn't waling around in a paranoid state, religion started to fall by the wayside and technological innovation was able to flourish.

No argument on most of what you said.

You forget what we know of the African tribes in terms of ritual warfare and how they only fought for territory and resources.
Also, if you consider how many of the more Eastern city states, living in finite resourced areas would have had to resort to child sacrifice as population control then your thinking would change. That is likely why religions first invented prostitution and tried to make procreation a religious ritual.
I hope you have the time to take a look. Let me give you two links, one short and the other long, unfortunately, to illustrate my points.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Teshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A
You should remember as well that even up to the middle ages, warfare was often initiated to just get rid of the excessive and young population.
Regards
DL

(15-03-2013 07:39 AM)Greatest I am Wrote: No argument on most of what you said.

You forget what we know of the African tribes in terms of ritual warfare and how they only fought for territory and resources.
Also, if you consider how many of the more Eastern city states, living in finite resourced areas would have had to resort to child sacrifice as population control then your thinking would change. That is likely why religions first invented prostitution and tried to make procreation a religious ritual.
I hope you have the time to take a look. Let me give you two links, one short and the other long, unfortunately, to illustrate my points.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Teshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A
You should remember as well that even up to the middle ages, warfare was often initiated to just get rid of the excessive and young population.
Regards
DL

I don't forget those things, I disagree with them. Those presumptions are and almost always have been made by historians and archaeologists who don't have any understanding of psychology. It's easy to assume that people were fighting over resources and murdering children for population control when you look at some remains without the benefit of understanding what motivates people. The bottom line is that war doesn't pay off. It costs more in resources, both human and material, than it benefits the victor. That's not to say that there weren't warring tribes because there certainly were. But the fact is that they didn't war with one another over food or land. They fought because they were superstitious and we have modern evidence of that truth in places like Papua New Guinea. When people with a psychological understanding have interviewed the members of primitive tribes there, an entirely different story than what archaeologists and historians posit emerges. Childrearing is brutal there and the results are adults who, as I mentioned above, are either schizoid or psychotic. Ritual human sacrifice and infanticide are not practiced for population control. Sacrifice is religious in nature and infanticide happens more often than not because the mother is afraid of the child she has just given birth to... usually she fears that it is possessed by demons and that she must kill it in order to save herself and her other children. Likewise, many more female infants are killed than are males because they believe women to possess demonic powers. Which, by the way, is the reason why women are so often portrayed as monsters devouring children in art of all times through history.

In short, humanity has done itself a huge disservice by basing our assumptions about historical societies on how we think at the time we dig up a ruin. For instance, you and many others presume that children were sacrificed for the purpose of population control because that's the only reason you think you would resort to doing something like that. The problem with that assumption is that humans even as little as a hundred years ago didn't do all things for the same reasons we do them today... or don't do them, as the case may be. One simply can't just imagine how they thought and what their motivations were a thousand, ten thousand or a hundred thousand years ago with no comprehensive understanding of psychology.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb